LoL. If you think I'm preaching to the choir - at least in your case Lymphoma, you're not obliged to read my posts. But fact of the matter is that many here - regulars, irregulars, and lurkers - STILL haven't seen the light.

And with you and Captain Fluffy Bunny leading the Washington cohort - apparently, if I were you then I'd reflect on the adage about stones and glass houses ...

That's not my twitter account. (I don't have one). I've been thinking joining a forum that has more action, the news site on this one routinely has more than 300 on a t one time: https://www.stormfront.org/forum/index.php
Not sure if I want to get a knock on the door from CSIS though so I've been holding off.

free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑
That's not my twitter account. (I don't have one). I've been thinking joining a forum that has more action, the news site on this one routinely has more than 300 on a t one time: https://www.stormfront.org/forum/index.php
Not sure if I want to get a knock on the door from CSIS though so I've been holding off.

Hmmmm... Trump is probably the most pro-Jewish president in history.... so yeah.... someone shooting up a synagogue is due to actions of the White House.

Have you heard that the shooter blamed HIAS for the Honduran caravan in particular?

Yeah... well... then we should fix the illegal alien problem... right?

It will only happen when some prominent Republican donors don't need illegal aliens to employ on the cheap. Republicans had the big three, house, Senate and president and nothin' got done. My big pro-Trump neighbor had some work done on his house and yard this summer, only the foreman had any English at all. He is big against illegals, but I suspect not at far as his pocketbook. Right now illegal immigration is very low and trending lower, but they make a convenient boogeyman. Trump riles up the base, Democrats react like trained dogs, the media pushes clicks and the circus goes on.

Let's take this up, shall we? They were brave men, no doubt. But odds are at least one of them was homosexual, and no doubt this caused him no small distress. Liberal ideas free people from having to pretend they're something they're not. Whether you agree with gay marriage or not, I will hope you at least acknowledge that gays have a fundamental right to express their sexuality. In his time, that would have lead to criminal punishment. It was liberal ideas that changed that. There have been many advances brought on by liberal ideas. Suffrage, equal rights, child labor- or tell me, which of these things brought about are bad?

You cannot blame liberals for all the failings of the world, nice as it us to indulge in the false dichotomy of good/evil. Either liberal or conservative ideologies are massively destructive if left unchecked. There needs to be a balance. That seems to be a pretty uncontroversial statement, but apparently not for Brive.

Brive conflates all the left, despite the left being very divided, perhaps even more than the right. It's weird to think that one must throw out all liberal ideas because a vocal few are cunts. Not to mention the hypocrisy of deciding via personal fiat who is actually affiliated with a movement and what their intentions are.

Now we're at the point where FT has a little tantrum and names the Undead Thread in a dick move. And how did we get here? Brive wants to make the main thread his personal bitching ground about the Fall of Western Civilization, and Australia in particular. Many people asked him to stop, with absolutely no effect. So he posts, and naturally people respond. Usually when I try to engage with Brive, he resorts to snark and insults. If you look back at our posts, I tried to engage respectfully at first. But the little fucker just can't seem to help himself. It's also hard when Brive's posts are cryptic and very unclear as to his actual meaning. I'm uncertain as to whether or not he's trying to maintain plausible deniability, or if he simply is a poor writer. That's not meant as an insult, but it is factual. And those posts go all over the place. Brive posts about some reasonable limits on immigration on one hand and then turns around and decides PZ and I are soul mates. All while dismissing that a good 90% of his fellow travelers on the right are demonstrable loons.

Even people agreeing with him in general should call him on his hypocrisy. This used to be a forum where people didn't just not along because they agreed with most of the premise of the poster. If somebody said something batshit insane, they got called on it. Not so much anymore. Now it seems to be a place for pure tribalism. It looks to becoming a simple alt-right mirror to Freethought Blogs. All reactionary snark, all (to borrow a phrase) "my tribe, right or wrong. PS, they're always right."

Doesn't it seem odd that Kirbmarc and FtP will post criticisms of the left, but you never see Brive & Co post much critical about the right? Sure, he disavowed "blood magic," but let's be honest, that's a pretty low hurdle. Brive posts tweets from PJW, while scorning The Washington Post. And then he fails to see the hypocrisy. Motivated reasoning at it's finest.

Brive, stop whining. "The Aussie military is moving to civilian roles for refueling, woe, how the mighty have fallen!" "There's Chinese writing on Sydney adverts, we are overrun!" There's sensible measures for immigration, and then there's "race is a shorthand for culture," which can be demonstrated to be untrue.

Brive, you want to keep it in the proper threads and be civil, great. I've been for that from the beginning. But don't expect me to tiptoe around your issues if you are an asshole.

You'll be contacted by your alien lizard supervisor if you're deemed worthy. On orientation day you're asked to see if you can swallow a live hamster. If you pass the test they'll show you evidence that JFK was killed by Ted Cruz's father as an initiation prank, that Elvis and Marilyn Monroe didn't die, indeed they were the real astronauts who have been on the moon to gather material for the chemtrails, and they'll teach you the secret handshake to get the real healthcare and welfare benefits.

After a few months, some lucky bastards get to whisper subconscious commands to various puppets among the so-called "world leaders". That's a nice gig, but you have to be careful. One guy got bored and thought it was fun to have Trump tweet "covfefe", and now he's assigned to a gay frog farm.

Oh, and Bigfoot isn't real, it's just a cover for the real Paul McCartney running amok in American forests after he was replaced by a fake.

Lauren Southern's friend. Nothing to do with race. Alt-lite. It's all about cultural collectives actually. :bjarte:

Not sure I understand your point here. I don't doubt that Molyneux is racist, but what he's saying in this tweet is a testable hypothesis that could in fact be true. My favourite statistic, for example, is that domestic violence rates are highest amongst lesbians, despite there not being an evil patriarch present. Indeed, as someone who has parents who had very different cultural backgrounds (and ethnic too, but that's not been an issue), I can certainly understand the confusion that can arise growing up. It's probably only that my mother completely surrendered her cultural identity that made it less of an issue. My sister and I have often had conversations about this kind of thing (submit to my lived experience!). If you have good studies refuting this, I'd like to see it, but I'm not sure your dismissal out of hand is valid.

The free speech forest comprises the confluence of trends. Not just individual trees. Hate crime and fake news are undefinable terms selectively applied for social objectives by the institutions of a social-left predominant culture.

Lauren Southern's friend. Nothing to do with race. Alt-lite. It's all about cultural collectives actually. :bjarte:

Not sure I understand your point here. I don't doubt that Molyneux is racist, but what he's saying in this tweet is a testable hypothesis that could in fact be true. My favourite statistic, for example, is that domestic violence rates are highest amongst lesbians, despite there not being an evil patriarch present. Indeed, as someone who has parents who had very different cultural backgrounds (and ethnic too, but that's not been an issue), I can certainly understand the confusion that can arise growing up. It's probably only that my mother completely surrendered her cultural identity that made it less of an issue. My sister and I have often had conversations about this kind of thing (submit to my lived experience!). If you have good studies refuting this, I'd like to see it, but I'm not sure your dismissal out of hand is valid.

“Guilt by association” has apparently broken free from its SJW constraints. I do get confused though whether race is a fake construct or whether it’s a something that may have envelope causal inputs for certain dynamics. White privileged is a thing. Black dysfunction not so much. I wish the world could make up its mind.

The free speech forest comprises the confluence of trends. Not just individual trees. Hate crime and fake news are undefinable terms selectively applied for social objectives by the institutions of a social-left predominant culture.

Again, I don't think you're in the same boat of the racial purity people. You're fine with some Chinese or Indians around. You simply think that there is too many of them, that they don't assimilate (or not enough) to preserve something you deem important, and you want to curb their numbers to avoid the loss of a cultural identity you deem important. That's usually a far-right political theme, even if it's not "blood and soil" or "one drop" racialism.

Far-right is defined by its extreme position on the spectrum. One drop, racial magic, Jewish conspiracies and simplified causal arguments. Umm. Killing people and revolution.

You don’t get to plunk concern over historically crazy immigration rates, demonstrable (and injected) cultural disruption and other extreme gear changes as “far right”. Even if you think it will help you win your point.

The free speech forest comprises the confluence of trends. Not just individual trees. Hate crime and fake news are undefinable terms selectively applied for social objectives by the institutions of a social-left predominant culture.

That post doesn't make sense. It seems like you have inserted some nonsense to the links I provided. Fake goldy was shovelling bullshit about Canadian law and you respond with a news articles about 2 dubious Aus cases. This has fuck all to do with the Canadian law against advocating genocide which has seldom been used, the last noteworthy time was when we deported one of the Rwandan scumbags behind the genocide there to face justice.
Surely you don't dispute the wisdom of that judgment?

There are of course serious questions around whether genocidal intent can be exercised outside a functioning civil/military structure. Maybe Rwanda was a particularly viscous tribal war.

Anyway, FG was more interested in new measures for the forthcoming election. I was interested in how this converged with other forms of civic control (based on dubious terms) and how such control was focused with cultural intent. You provided interesting detail around past and extant measures in Canada.

Brive1987 wrote: ↑
There are of course serious questions around whether genocidal intent can be exercised outside a functioning civil/military structure. Maybe Rwanda was a particularly viscous tribal war.

Anyway, FG was more interested in new measures for the forthcoming election. I was interested in how this converged with other forms of civic control (based on dubious terms) and how such control was focused with cultural intent. You provided interesting detail around past and extant measures in Canada.

The internet monitoring that Goldy alludes to won't be silencing Canadians input into the election as she implies. It is specifically aimed at foreign interference. Another example of her dishonesty . Really, if you want accurate information about what is going on in Canada don't count on getting it from her. There are respectable conservative journalists and editorialists in Canada. She isn't one of them.https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/feds-un ... -1.4274273

Brive1987 wrote: ↑
There are of course serious questions around whether genocidal intent can be exercised outside a functioning civil/military structure. Maybe Rwanda was a particularly viscous tribal war.

Anyway, FG was more interested in new measures for the forthcoming election. I was interested in how this converged with other forms of civic control (based on dubious terms) and how such control was focused with cultural intent. You provided interesting detail around past and extant measures in Canada.

The internet monitoring that Goldy alludes to won't be silencing Canadians input into the election as she implies. It is specifically aimed at foreign interference. Another example of her dishonesty . Really, if you want accurate information about what is going on in Canada don't count on getting it from her. There are respectable conservative journalists and editorialists in Canada. She isn't one of them.https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/feds-un ... -1.4274273

Maybe not. From your link.

Should an instance of foreign meddling or another interference attempt arise

Responding to the announcement, NDP democratic reform critic Nathan Cullen criticized that Elections Canada's Chief Electoral Officer is not a part of this team.

"The one person who is hired by Parliament not by the sitting government, as is the case of everybody else on that protocol committee because there can be no whiff of any hint of partisanship or decision making in the release of such volatile information," Cullen said.

As part of this effort the government is spending $7 million on "digital, news, and civic literacy programming."

Having Trudeau teach you how to think is not comforting.

We did not see a detailed and credible plan, we saw a lot of buzzwords, a lot of platitudes that should leave Canadians concerned in regards to the safeguarding of the electoral process in 2019," she said.

I don’t see FG being factually incorrect anywhere. Her OP makes the reasonable point that Govt regulation of SM content is unlikely to be entirely benign.

Having Trudeau teach you how to think is not comforting.
We did not see a detailed and credible plan, we saw a lot of buzzwords, a lot of platitudes that should leave Canadians concerned in regards to the safeguarding of the electoral process in 2019," she said.
I don’t see FG being factually incorrect anywhere. Her OP makes the reasonable point that Govt regulation of SM content is unlikely to be entirely benign.

FG was being dishonest by showing Trudeau's picture throughout the video and implying he and the Liberal party were going to run the watchdog agency. It is completely run by non political bureaucrats.
Your quote of the Conservative spokeswoman isn't that she is worried that the Liberals would abuse the power but that she didn't think the plan laid out was specific enough and was concerned it may not be effective.
Cullen is an NDP member, and the NDP member has never formed a federal government which is a good thing because they are far left SJW types. His bitch is that the NDP never hired any bureaucrats and that the panel are career bureaucrats that have been hired by Conservative and Liberal governments.
Goldy's point is not reasonable. If you look at the facts about how the panel will operate their task is not to regulate social media as much as to identify foreign hackers, troll farms and using bots to manipulate the info out there. Her attempt to try and cast this as a deep state/ Trudeau operation to silence Canadians is just dishonest bullshit propaganda.
It seems to me that you watch a FG video and swallow it hook line and sinker. When shown evidence that she is inaccurate or dishonest you ignore that and look hard for pro Goldy points or even stretch points that don't back her up to try and fit her propaganda. I hope when you continue to upgrade your history degree you use better research methods then watching crackpot youtubers and basically swallow all of the bullshit they spew that fits your preconceived notions or what you want to believe.

Having Trudeau teach you how to think is not comforting.
We did not see a detailed and credible plan, we saw a lot of buzzwords, a lot of platitudes that should leave Canadians concerned in regards to the safeguarding of the electoral process in 2019," she said.
I don’t see FG being factually incorrect anywhere. Her OP makes the reasonable point that Govt regulation of SM content is unlikely to be entirely benign.

FG was being dishonest by showing Trudeau's picture throughout the video and implying he and the Liberal party were going to run the watchdog agency. It is completely run by non political bureaucrats.
Your quote of the Conservative spokeswoman isn't that she is worried that the Liberals would abuse the power but that she didn't think the plan laid out was specific enough and was concerned it may not be effective.
Cullen is an NDP member, and the NDP member has never formed a federal government which is a good thing because they are far left SJW types. His bitch is that the NDP never hired any bureaucrats and that the panel are career bureaucrats that have been hired by Conservative and Liberal governments.
Goldy's point is not reasonable. If you look at the facts about how the panel will operate their task is not to regulate social media as much as to identify foreign hackers, troll farms and using bots to manipulate the info out there. Her attempt to try and cast this as a deep state/ Trudeau operation to silence Canadians is just dishonest bullshit propaganda.
It seems to me that you watch a FG video and swallow it hook line and sinker. When shown evidence that she is inaccurate or dishonest you ignore that and look hard for pro Goldy points or even stretch points that don't back her up to try and fit her propaganda. I hope when you continue to upgrade your history degree you use better research methods then watching crackpot youtubers and basically swallow all of the bullshit they spew that fits your preconceived notions or what you want to believe.

Thank you for the advice. My ability to break down source material into facts, legitimate exposition and partisan narrative is just fine.

Goldy provides a mixture of all this and more. Which makes it very interesting.

MSM: “The government has formed a task force and selected 5 bureaucrats ...”
FG: Questions lack of collusion indictments from M and doesn’t want moral panic to come to Canada
FG: Highlights extent domestic monetary interference in media as counterpoise
FG: Mocks the “critical election incident Public Proticol” which is a press conference
FG: Draws attention to the govt asking SM to be even more controlling and censorious
FG: Correctly links JT pic to the govt $7m for reprogramming workshops and mocks them as undefined and possibly Orwellian
FG: Questions the management of clear conflict of interest - a govt initiative controlling information during an election year
FG: Raises the legitimate point that “fake news” is an undefined concept now owned by a govt panel
FG: Points out that “foreign interference” is an undefined and nebulous concept
FG: Questions the govt choice of aligning with MSM to police alt media during a period of media democratisation
FG: Suggests that democratised media should also be cover by the Bill of Rights “free press”
FG: Suggests that much fake news is covered by existing libel laws
FG: Provides a POV (which is debatable) that JT Govt is clamping down on altmedia. Based on her exp. I get her feelz here.

All in all an array of interesting and topical points. Worthy of more examination than a 7min video is capable of.

I suspect you simply can’t stand her or anything that she says. Probably her smirk.

FG: Points out that “foreign interference” is an undefined and nebulous concept

It seems to be pretty well defined in the article:

According to Goodale, a fifth of the tweets in the last month of the U.S. election were generated by bots. "This wasn't citizens intensely engaged in the democratic process, instead it was contrived and electronically generated meddling intended to pervert the conversation," he said.

Goodale said that foreign countries working to sculpt public opinion in their domestic interest is not new, and is not wrong, as long as it's done lawfully, openly, and accurately. Though, he says, a "bright red line gets crossed" when that effort to influence is done covertly or with the intention to destabilize or manipulate.

"Increasingly the interference is higher-tech… Social media have been used to falsely slander elected officials, trolls and bots are dispatched to stoke anxiety even hysteria around sensitive issues. Fake news masquerades as legitimate information," Goodale told reporters on Wednesday.

I've been trying to explain to you that the focus of the panel is to try to counter foreign disinformation campaigns such as the ones that have been run by the Russian GRU and Internet Research Agency that have been targeting elections in a number of countries in the last several years. The attempt that Goldy is making to try and brand this as some Orwellian endeavor is just dishonest bullshit.

I suspect you simply can’t stand her or anything that she says. Probably her smirk.

Partly her sneering attitude, partly her dishonesty and hypocrisy, partly because she is basically a right wing mirror image of Rebecca Watson that for some reason is able to get gullible goofs to fall in love with her because she panders to their prejudices. But maybe it is unfair to dislike sneering, smirking assholes that somehow end up on the internet.